Before you go thinking the TSA has jumped about 100 miles ahead from yesterday's news about liquid screening, know this: It would only be at small to mid-sized airports across the country, where flights only carry 60 passengers maximum; think those regional jumpers that hop to and from larger hubs. Of the 440 airports that TSA screens at, 150 would be affected.

"Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screenings...could bring a 'small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity," says CNN. The cuts would save the TSA roughly $115 million a year, the report says.

Terror experts have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers arrived into Boston from Portland, Maine, in part because the smaller Portland Airport was considered less secure due to its size. In the new proposals, passengers who connect onto other flights at larger airports will be screened at the connecting airport before boarding

"Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target—that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," CNN terrorism expert Paul Cruickshank said in the report. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life." Juliette Kayyem, who worked in the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration noted that small planes still had the potential to be weaponized, causing major loss of life.

There is no word on a timeline or when the proposals would go through. But in our opinion, doesn't seem like saving money or time in an airport is worth the risk.